Maybe it's time to quit. by Raistlin


User avatar
Raistlin
As some of you know, I am a Magistrate.

Part of the responsibility includes sending people to prison if it is warranted. For the record, I don't think prison works, certainly as it is at the moment but, nonetheless, if in the judgment of the Bench, a custodial sentence is warranted, then so be it. Or so I thought...

As you know, that master of u-turn and sound-bites, Ken (I haven't a clue) Clark, by some wondrous means, has got himself into the position of Secretary of State for justice (I use lower case 'j' advisedly) and in his unseemly haste to cheesepare money from his budget without affecting him or his toadies, has decided to empty the prisons. Nothing realistic to take their place you understand, but who cares, as long as it sounds good and saves money, at least superficially.

Unfortunately for him, the Magistracy are completely independent of the executive, both judicially AND financially, being non salaried, which, in turn means that when they decide that an individual is for jail, Clark's blandishments are given the consideration of which they are worthy, ie. ignored and the individual goes down the steps.

Well... that's how it should be but now there's a new step in the custodial process, brought about by defence advocates, most notably of a particular firm in this area, whereby a sentence of imprisonment doesn't, in fact mean that but is, to all intents and purposes, a stepping stone for the defendant to make an immediate notice of appeal ( demanding bail pending appeal as well).

Why is this? Well, I found out that because, in the defence advocates' view, Judges being salaried judiciary, are more likely to toe the party line, it's a worthy calculated gamble to take a case to appeal.

For those of you who don't know, a Magistrates' Court sentence (or conviction and sentence) has automatic right of appeal when the case is re-heard in Crown Court by a Bench consisting of two Magistrates and a Judge, either a Circuit Judge or a Recorder.

This firm of solicitors in particular (and more are joining them each day it seems) have realised that it only takes one of the appeal Court Magistrates to be in awe of the Judge to gain a two to one decision in their favour, thus having the prison sentence quashed or reduced to a suspended sentence.

You know what? It's working. :evil: Wolverhampton Crown Court is swamped with applications for appeal of sentence.

I'm of the view that we are not the only Court where this is being successfully tried either.

No Magistrate sends a person to prison unless it is justified and that fact was tacitly accepted by both advocates and defendants, with the exception of vary rare appeals where the sentence was found to be wrong, either in spirit or in law. After all, nobody is infallible. Not any longer though.

Now, when I read the Conservative general election manifesto I'm sure I saw in there a commitment to stronger law and order and a plan to double the sentencing powers of the summary Court.

This is not really a rant, because I can walk out any time I like but perhaps it might be food for thought :confused:
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 13 Apr 2011, 20:18 #1 

User avatar
JohnDotCom
Law and order and this government is a contradiction in terms.
John

"My lovely car now sold onto a very happy new owner.
I still love this marque and I will still be around, preferred selling to breaking, as a great runner and performer"

Posted 13 Apr 2011, 21:54 #2 


goodlittlewifey
Is this just for minor crimes,when the 3 strikes and out were meant to be in play.or are all crimes i.e murder ,coming under this new regime

Posted 13 Apr 2011, 22:20 #3 

User avatar
Duncan
goodlittlewifey wrote:Is this just for minor crimes,when the 3 strikes and out were meant to be in play.or are all crimes i.e murder ,coming under this new regime


Are you planning something?
Image

Posted 14 Apr 2011, 07:01 #4 

User avatar
Raistlin
goodlittlewifey wrote:Is this just for minor crimes,when the 3 strikes and out were meant to be in play.or are all crimes i.e murder ,coming under this new regime


I understand what you mean Heather but "minor" is a relative term, don't you think? :)

Defendants have no automatic right of appeal from the Crown Court for indictable offences and they have to put a very strong case before appeal to the high Court is granted.

Examples of the offences I'm talking about in the Summary Court are distraction burglaries, where old, frail or otherwise vulnerable people are targeted, assaults in a domestic violence environment, ABH, robbery, theft in breach of trust, cruelty to children, etc. etc.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 14 Apr 2011, 07:45 #5 


PaulT
Paul

My impressions from any posts that you make in respect of your Magisterial duties are that you are not vindicitive but level headed and fair.

If you and any other like minded Magistrates throws in the towel because of the was that justice is being eroded then it will be eroded far more.

It would seem that any main political party advocates more effective justice but then does the opposite in power.

The other problem is legal aid. A wonderful system if you cannot afford legal representation but it is also used by those who can appeal and it costs them nothing just robs the taxpayer some more.

And as for the solicitors - well, legal aid provides a nice little income for them hence their keeness to milk the system for all its worth. I presume their is more money in it by launching an appeal.

I think my morals would not allow me to be a defence solicitor - there they are trying to get people found not guilty some of whom they must know are guilty.

Paul
Paul

That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play

Image

Posted 14 Apr 2011, 08:01 #6 


goodlittlewifey
Duncan wrote:
goodlittlewifey wrote:Is this just for minor crimes,when the 3 strikes and out were meant to be in play.or are all crimes i.e murder ,coming under this new regime


Are you planning something?




ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
As if, now where did I want that new patio, (runs to check on Tims life insurance ) ;) ;) ;) ;) :twisted:

Posted 14 Apr 2011, 12:20 #7 


podge
A very sad state of affairs Paul,I think John hit the nail on the head.........ah yes,legal aid........I seem to remember a certain Mr Saunders...............best leave it there.P.

Posted 14 Apr 2011, 15:56 #8 

User avatar
Zeb
Time to quit??? Nah... where'd the fun be in that? :confused: At least in your current position you can have a go at making a difference and kick up a stink more effectively when the likes of Clarkeyboy try to screw things up yet further...

Posted 14 Apr 2011, 20:12 #9 

User avatar
Bermudan 75
You only have to look at how many MP's who hold a ministerial office who are either solicitors or barristers and you will find the source of the problem.

The makers of the Law have a vested interest in the status quo.

Mr Blair introduced Human Rights legislation, Mrs Blair,a barrister, made a fortune in representing people who had had, in my view, no defence apart from this EU imposed legislation. Who was the party that was prosecuted under the legislation? non other than her husband's own government.

The House of Lord's should be empowered to close loopholes in legislation that thwart the purpose of the said legislationthat the House of Commons intended.

This would put a stop to the legal profession milking all of us.
Image

Posted 15 Apr 2011, 14:03 #10 


Top

cron